6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Hao Jia <jiahao.os@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit 5ebde09d91707a4a9bec1e3d213e3c12ffde348f upstream.
Igor Raits and Bagas Sanjaya report a RQCF_ACT_SKIP leak warning.
This warning may be triggered in the following situations:
CPU0 CPU1
__schedule()
*rq->clock_update_flags <<= 1;* unregister_fair_sched_group()
pick_next_task_fair+0x4a/0x410 destroy_cfs_bandwidth()
newidle_balance+0x115/0x3e0 for_each_possible_cpu(i) *i=0*
rq_unpin_lock(this_rq, rf) __cfsb_csd_unthrottle()
raw_spin_rq_unlock(this_rq)
rq_lock(*CPU0_rq*, &rf)
rq_clock_start_loop_update()
rq->clock_update_flags & RQCF_ACT_SKIP <--
raw_spin_rq_lock(this_rq)
The purpose of RQCF_ACT_SKIP is to skip the update rq clock,
but the update is very early in __schedule(), but we clear
RQCF_*_SKIP very late, causing it to span that gap above
and triggering this warning.
In __schedule() we can clear the RQCF_*_SKIP flag immediately
after update_rq_clock() to avoid this RQCF_ACT_SKIP leak warning.
And set rq->clock_update_flags to RQCF_UPDATED to avoid
rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT_SKIP warning that may be triggered later.
Fixes: ebb83d84e49b ("sched/core: Avoid multiple calling update_rq_clock() in __cfsb_csd_unthrottle()")
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230913082424.73252-1-jiahao.os@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reported-by: Igor Raits <igor.raits@xxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Hao Jia <jiahao.os@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/a5dd536d-041a-2ce9-f4b7-64d8d85c86dc@xxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 5 +----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -5378,8 +5378,6 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct tas
/* switch_mm_cid() requires the memory barriers above. */
switch_mm_cid(rq, prev, next);
- rq->clock_update_flags &= ~(RQCF_ACT_SKIP|RQCF_REQ_SKIP);
-
prepare_lock_switch(rq, next, rf);
/* Here we just switch the register state and the stack. */
@@ -6619,6 +6617,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(u
/* Promote REQ to ACT */
rq->clock_update_flags <<= 1;
update_rq_clock(rq);
+ rq->clock_update_flags = RQCF_UPDATED;
switch_count = &prev->nivcsw;
@@ -6698,8 +6697,6 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(u
/* Also unlocks the rq: */
rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next, &rf);
} else {
- rq->clock_update_flags &= ~(RQCF_ACT_SKIP|RQCF_REQ_SKIP);
-
rq_unpin_lock(rq, &rf);
__balance_callbacks(rq);
raw_spin_rq_unlock_irq(rq);
